search_by_session_id

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It adds meaningful traits beyond the schema: 'Results are sorted chronologically' and 'Requires SQLite FTS'. It does not mention exact-match semantics or permissions, but the read-oriented wording and presence of an output schema reduce ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second gives the primary use case with examples, and the third provides ordering and a system prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the purpose, a concrete use case, chronological ordering, and the SQLite FTS dependency. It does not explain the limit parameter's effect or mention alternative tools, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and available output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for session_id by calling it a 'D2 metadata field' and explaining its role in reconstructing sessions, but the limit parameter is not described at all beyond its schema default. This partial compensation leaves one parameter without added context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb ('Find') with a concrete resource ('all conversations sharing a session_id') and clarifies that session_id is a 'D2 metadata field', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools that search by topic, tag, or conversation type. An agent can immediately understand what the tool returns and how it differs from alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'reconstructing a multi-turn session that spans several stored conversation records', with concrete examples like a Cursor working session or a Claude thread continued across days. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.